Gays In The Military

Yes: Performance Is What Really Matters

December 23, 1991|By Rep. Ted Weiss.

In the tension of battle, Alan Stephens is someone you would want by your side. A seven-year officer in the United States Army, Stephens has been awarded three Army Commendation medals, one Army Achievement medal, the Parachutist Badge and the Air Assault Badge.

His officer efficiency reports have consistently rated him above most of his peers.

Yet Alan Stephens is no longer on active duty. The reason has nothing to do with his commitment to military service. The simple fact is that Alan Stephens is a gay man, and the Pentagon does not like that.

Estimates indicate that since 1982, more than 10,000 men and women have been discharged for military duty on the basis of admitted or suspected homosexuality. That translates roughly into 1,110 individuals per year, or just over three persons a day.

The Pentagon claims that the presence of gay members in our armed forces makes it difficult ``to maintain good discipline, good order and morale.``

These claims come despite at least three studies by the Department of Defense itself over the last 35 years which dispute that assertion. The 1956

``Crittenden Report`` held that ``from all information available to the committee, it would appear that the concept that homosexuals necessarily pose a security risk is unsupported by adequate factual data.`` Two subsequent reports have reached the same conclusion.

The discrepancy between the Defense Department`s rationale for a ban on gays and the military performance of those individuals is perhaps most vividly exemplified in a 1990 administrative message from Vice Adm. Joseph Donnell of the Navy`s surface Atlantic fleet to the officers in charge of more than 200 ships.

Donnell characterized lesbian sailors as ``among the command`s top performers.``

But rather than re-evaluating Pentagon guidelines with respect to gay service personnel, Donnell instead feared that the exemplary record of lesbian sailors would make it more difficult to enforce those guidelines. His advice? Enforce the ban vigorously, and root out all gay and lesbian sailors. This absurd adherence to policy over performance demeans our military, and invites comparisons to Joseph Heller`s Catch-22.

Furthermore, Americans really ought to know that the procedural cost in ridding the military of gays and lesbians is exorbitant. Between 1974 and 1984, the Defense Department spent more than $180 million to train, investigate and ultimately discharge 14,311 gay and lesbian members of the armed services. In our nation`s current fiscal climate, American taxpayers ought to be outraged to see their money being wasted on this shameless witch hunt.

Not long ago, I joined my colleague Rep. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) in introducing a resolution in Congress instructing President Bush to rescind the Pentagon`s ban on gays and lesbians in the U.S. military. I observed at that time it is supremely ironic that after being asked to fight for democratic values and freedom abroad, gay and lesbian members of our armed forces must now fight their own battle against the very institution for which they were ready to give-and have given-the ultimate sacrifice.

When President Harry Truman ended racial segregation in the military in 1948, it was finally acknowledged that the ability to serve one`s country had nothing to do with the color of one`s skin. That decision did more than open up the armed services to African-Americans. It also honored the memory of tens of thousands of black soldiers who gave their lives for their country during the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, World War I and World War II.

The resolution now in Congress, House Resolution 271, likewise reclaims that patriotic history for gay men and lesbians.

Congress, the Pentagon and President Bush have an opportunity to redress a great wrong.

Defense Secretary Cheney himself earlier this year referred to the ban on gays in the military as ``a bit of an old chestnut.`` A recent Gallup Poll shows that as many as 60 percent of Americans agree with him.

Now, we have two choices before us: We can act with courage, as President Truman did 43 years ago when he integrated the armed services; or we can act from fear and cowardice, continuing an injustice to a part of our population that has served our nation with distinction and honor.

The decision, I believe, is obvious to all fair-minded Americans. Let`s do it now.